ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

The names of faculty employed by the 76 member social work programs of the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work were retrieved via a web-search. This resulted in a list of 2204 social work faculty. Their individual H-Indices were then obtained, using either the Publish or Perish software, or via manual calculations from Google Scholar. The top 100 most influential contemporary social work faculty were identified, resulting in a listing of individuals who have published relatively large numbers of scholarly works which themselves have been subsequently highly cited. Apart from recognizing these productive individuals, listing them and their home institutions will permit future researchers to examine the causes and correlates of high academic productivity.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wssr20
Journal of Social Service Research
ISSN: 0148-8376 (Print) 1540-7314 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wssr20
The 100 Most Influential Contemporary Social
Work Faculty as Assessed by the H-Index
Bruce A. Thyer, Thomas E. Smith, Philip Osteen & Tyler Carter
To cite this article: Bruce A. Thyer, Thomas E. Smith, Philip Osteen & Tyler Carter (2019) The 100
Most Influential Contemporary Social Work Faculty as Assessed by the H-Index, Journal of Social
Service Research, 45:5, 696-700, DOI: 10.1080/01488376.2018.1501793
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2018.1501793
Published online: 18 Feb 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 812
View Crossmark data
The 100 Most Influential Contemporary Social Work Faculty as Assessed by
the H-Index
Bruce A. Thyer
a
, Thomas E. Smith
a
, Philip Osteen
b
, and Tyler Carter
a
a
Florida State University, College of Social Work, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA;
b
University of Utah, College of
Social Work, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
ABSTRACT
The names of faculty employed by the 76 member social work programs of the Group for
the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work were retrieved via a web-search. This
resulted in a list of 2204 social work faculty. Their individual H-Indices were then obtained,
using either the Publish or Perish software, or via manual calculations from Google Scholar.
The top 100 most influential contemporary social work faculty were identified, resulting in a
listing of individuals who have published relatively large numbers of scholarly works which
themselves have been subsequently highly cited. Apart from recognizing these productive
individuals, listing them and their home institutions will permit future researchers to exam-
ine the causes and correlates of high academic productivity.
KEYWORDS
H-Index; impact factor;
social work faculty;
scholarly influence; citations
The evaluation of social work faculty is an
inexact science and may involve separate meth-
ods to appraise teaching effectiveness, contribu-
tions to professional service, and scholarly
impact. Long-standing measures of scholarship
have included tabulating the numbers of publica-
tions authored by the faculty member in the
form of articles in professional journals, chapters
and books. A more recent metric involves count-
ing the citations to a faculty members publica-
tions, with the inference made that scholarly
works that are little cited make less of a scholarly
contribution to disciplinary intellectual discourse
than works that are cited a great deal
(Westbrook, 1960). Scholarly databases such as
the Web of Science and Google Scholar make it
possible to see how often a given publication has
been cited, and the total number of citations
accumulated by a given author for all of their
oeuvre. Although an admittedly limited way to
assess influence, citation counts have emerged as
a broadly accepted indicator of scholarly influ-
ence and are now widely included in making pro-
motion and tenure decisions, and as one criteria
used to allocate academic awards. Citations to
ones work also have a financial impact in terms
of academic raises and merit bonuses (Balaban,
1996; Diamond, 1986).
A more sophisticated way to tabulate ones cit-
ation impact is called the H-Index, created by
Hirsch (2005) and is defined as A scientist has
index hif hof his/her N
p
papers have at least h
citations each, and the other (N
p
h) papers have
no more than hcitations each(p. 16569). For
example, an author who has 10 publications
which have been cited at least 10 times will have
an h-index of 10. An author that has five cita-
tions which have been cited at least five times
each would have an H-Index of five. An author
of 10 publications, but only five of which have
been cited at least five times would have an H-
Index of five. Thus, simply authoring many pub-
lications will not increase ones H-Index unless
these works are cited. Higher H-Indices are expo-
nentially more difficult to achieve. Moving from
an H-Index of 510 is much easier than moving
from 30 to 35, for example, being dependent not
only on the raw numbers of publications but also
CONTACT Bruce A. Thyer Bthyer@fsu.edu Florida State University, College of Social Work, Florida State University, 296 Champions Way,
Tallahassee, FL 32306.
ß2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH
2019, VOL. 45, NO. 5, 696700
https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2018.1501793
upon the subsequent citations to ones works.
The use of the H-Index has been widely adopted
by many academic disciplines and professions,
including social work. Popularity aside, H-Index
scores have been identified to be highly corre-
lated with other bibliometric ratings of impact
and subjective perceptions of scholarly impact
(Hodge & Lacasse, 2011a). The H-index has been
used to evaluate individual social work faculty
(Hodge, Kremer, & Vaughn, 2016; Marshall
et al., 2016), social work programs (by combining
the H-Indices of a programs faculty to arrive at
an programs overall H-Index) (Barner, Holosko,
Thyer, & King, 2015), highly cited social work
articles (e.g., Martinez, Herrera, Contreras, Ruiz,
& Herrera-Viedma, 2015), and social work jour-
nals (Hodge & Lacasse, 2011a, 2011b; Lacasse,
Hodge, & Bean, 2011). These efforts within social
work parallel those undertaken in other fields
such as psychology (Diener, Oishi, & Park, 2014;
Farrell et al., 2016; Haslam, Stratemeyer, &
Vargas-Saenz, 2016; Nosek et al., 2010) and soci-
ology (Jacobs, 2016).
We extended these prior forms of bibliometric
analyses to calculate the 100 most influential
contemporary social work faculty as assessed by
the H-Index. There are several reasons for doing
this. One is to establish descriptively a tabulation
of current social work faculty whose scholarship
is having the greatest impact (in terms of being
highly cited). It is appropriate to publicly recog-
nize these individuals for their immense contri-
butions to academic discourse and to the
intellectual life of the profession. Another reason
for identifying these individuals is that future
researchers can undertake analyses to ascertain
factors correlated with high levels of productivity
(e.g., Are certain doctoral-granting institutions
disproportionately presented among the back-
grounds of these authors? Do the home institu-
tions of these social work faculty share certain
characteristics? What may be the roles of
selected demographic variables in promoting
high-impact scholarship?). By preparing such a
descriptive list now, scholars will be able to
update these tabulations to see how the list has
changed over time (e.g., Are women scholars
more represented?)
Method
Sample of Faculty
The faculty listings for each of the 76 social work
programs listed on the website of the Group for the
Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work
were reviewed (http://www.gadephd.org/member-
ship) and we developed a list of 2204 social work
faculty employed by programs offering a doctoral
degree in social work. Only individuals holding a
doctoral degree in their respective field (PhD, DSW,
EdD, MD, JD) were included for data collection.
Data Collection
The number of citations for each listed faculty
member was determined using the H-Index as cal-
culated by the Publish or Perish (PoP) software
program (Harzing, 2007). PoP draws on the
Google Scholar database and systematically produ-
ces an H-Index for that individual faculty member.
For faculty who had a Google Scholar profile, the
listed h-index score on their profile was recorded.
For those without a profile, a manual count was
conducted. To assess the reliability of manual
counts, PoP H-Index scores were collected for the
125 cases with the largest listed H-Indices. The
PoP-derived H-Index matched the Google Scholar-
based manual count with a Cronbachs alpha score
of 0.995, suggesting the essential equivalence
between the PoP and manually-derived H-indices
When there were discrepancies, the actual publica-
tion was retrieved to ensure which count was cor-
rect. The collection window for manual H-Index
scoring was from September 7, 2015 to January 31,
2016 (N¼2204). The collection time frame for
PoP-derived H-Index scores occurred from
February 11, 2016 to February 21, 2016.
Results
Table 1 lists the top 100 most influential contem-
porary social work faculty, as assessed by the
H-Index.
Discussion
The individuals appearing in Table 1 deserve to
be recognized for their significant contributions
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH 697
to the professions intellectual life. Their works
are substantive both in terms of quantity, the
sheer numbers of published works, but also in
terms of their quality, or utility, being used by
others. A substantial proportion of scholarly
articles are never cited (Hamilton, 1990), further
highlighting the significant impact the authors of
very highly cited papers exert on the field.
One aspect of the results that is rather striking
is that among the 10 most influential social work
faculty, 8 individuals are found who are not
themselves social workers. Only Steketee (#8) and
Barth (#9) have social work degrees. The other
eight hold doctorates in fields such as sociology
(Hawkins, Catalano, Mechanic, Vega), epidemi-
ology (Brownson), psychology (Bengston,
Jaccard) and medicine (Shear). These are persons
housed in a social work program and undoubt-
edly conduct much high-quality work in the field
of social services. Additional nonsocial workers
appear throughout our list (e.g., Charles Figley),
and our field is most fortunate that these persons
have chosen to pursue careers within our aca-
demic programs. But does it say something about
the quality of the research training obtained via
Table 1. 125 social work faculty ranked by PoP H-Index.
Faculty name School H-Index
1 J David Hawkins University of Washington 91
2 Richard F Catalano Jr University of Washington 88
3 David Mechanic Rutgers 87
4 Ross C Brownson Washington University 84
5 Vern Bengtson University of Southern California 76
6 James Jaccard NYU 73
7 Katherine Shear Columbia University 72
8 Gail Steketee Boston University 72
9 Richard P Barth University Maryland- Baltimore 63
10 William Vega University of Southern California 63
11 Richard (James) Gelles University of Pennsylvania 62
12 Jane Waldfogel Columbia University 60
13 Sheryl I Zimmerman UNC Chapel Hill 58
14 Marsha Mailick University of Wisconsin-Madison 58
15 Robert Joseph Taylor University of Michigan 57
16 Lawrence Palinkas University of Southern California 55
17 Jens Ludwig University of Chicago 53
18 David Takeuchi Boston College 52
19 Linda M Chatters University of Michigan 52
20 Peter Conrad Brandeis University 50
21 Matthew W Kreuter Washington University 50
22 Steven C Marcus University of Pennsylvania 48
23 Irwin Garfinkel Columbia University 47
24 Stephen Crystal Rutgers 47
25 Hortensia Amaro University of Southern California 47
26 Penelope Trickett University of Southern California 47
27 Nabila El-Bassel Columbia University 46
28 Edward C Chang University of Michigan 46
29 Charles R Figley Tulane 45
30 Sue Levkoff University of South Carolina 44
31 Jeffrey L Edleson UC Berkley 43
32 Jennifer L Skeem UC Berkley 43
33 Mark Umbreit University of Minnesota 43
34 Jan Steven Greenberg University of Wisconsin-Madison 43
35 Bruce Thyer Florida State 42
36 Jerome C Wakefield NYU 42
37 Elizabeth Wells University of Washington 41
38 Mark W Fraser UNC Chapel Hill 40
39 Claudia J Coulton Case Western 39
40 Michael G Vaughn Saint Louis University 39
41 Phyllis Solomon University of Pennsylvania 39
42 Iris Chi University of Southern California 39
43 Steven P Schinke Columbia University 38
44 David K Cohen UC Los Angeles 38
45 Robert F Schilling UC Los Angeles 38
46 Gary L Bowen UNC Chapel Hill 38
47 Ram Cnaan University of Pennsylvania 38
48 Todd Herrenkohl University of Washington 38
49 Diane M Morrison University of Washington 38
50 Michael Sherraden Washington University 38
51 Louisa Gilbert Columbia University 37
52 Mark E Courtney University of Chicago 37
53 Daniel G Saunders University of Michigan 37
54 Daniel Flannery Case Western 36
55 Deborah K Padgett NYU 36
56 Ronald William Toseland University at Albany (SUNY) 36
57 Michael Fendrich University of Connecticut 36
58 Matthew O Howard UNC Chapel Hill 36
59 Susan B Sorenson University of Pennsylvania 36
60 Charles Glisson University of Tennessee 36
61 Luis H Zayas UT Austin 36
62 Karl G Hill University of Washington 36
63 Katherine Magnuson University of Wisconsin-Madison 36
64 Debra Haire-Joshu Washington University 36
65 Nancy Morrow-Howell Washington University 36
66 Dennis P Culhane University of Pennsylvania 35
67 Kevin Haggerty University of Washington 35
68 Douglas A Luke Washington University 35
69 Ruth G McRoy Boston College 34
70 Deborah L Tolman Hunter College (CUNY) 34
71 Richard M Tolman University of Michigan 34
(Continued)
Table 1. Continued.
Faculty name School H-Index
72 Ron Avi Astor University of Southern California 34
73 Craig Nagoshi UT Arlington 34
74 Melissa Jonson-Reid Washington University 34
75 Gerald J Mahoney Case Western 34
76 David R Hodge Arizona State 33
77 James Midgley UC Berkley 33
78 Yeheskel (Zeke) Hasenfeld UC Los Angeles 33
79 Deborah Gorman-Smith University of Chicago 33
80 Lisa Berlin University Maryland- Baltimore 33
81 Joseph A Himle University of Michigan 33
82 John Brekke University of Southern California 33
83 Michael W Arthur University of Washington 33
84 Andres Gil Florida International 32
85 James Lubben Boston College 32
86 Neil Gilbert UC Berkley 32
87 Harold Pollack University of Chicago 32
88 Kathleen Ell University of Southern California 32
89 John S Wodarski University of Tennessee 32
90 Cynthia GS Franklin UT Austin 32
91 Paula Nurius University of Washington 32
92 Amy Horowitz Fordham University 31
93 Flavio Marsiglia Arizona State 31
94 Jill Levenson Barry 31
95 Aloen L Townsend Case Western 31
96 Eileen Gambrill UC Berkley 31
97 Steven P Segal UC Berkley 31
98 Sydney Hans University of Chicago 31
99 Allen Rubin University of Houston 31
100 Catherine Cubbin UT Austin 31
101 Peter J Pecora University of Washington 31
102 Enola K Proctor Washington University 31
103 Laurie E Powers Portland State 31
698 T. E. SMITH ET AL.
social work doctorates that many of the very
most productive faculty in our field were trained
through other disciplinary traditions and lack a
social work educational background?
Although it is important to identify our fields
most influential contemporary social work faculty,
there are some limitations to this approach. The
H-Index is subject to artificial inflation when
authors inappropriately and frequently cite their
past publications in contemporary writing, thus
rendering this metric a potentially inaccurate
measure of true value as determined via legitimate
citations from other independent scholars. The H-
Index may favor male authors (Geraci, Balsis, &
Busch, 2015) as men seem to engage in self-cit-
ation (which artificially inflates ones H-Index)
more often than do women (King, Bergstrom,
Correll, Jacquet, & West, 2017). Senior faculty,
administrators, and journal editors may coerce
authorships and citations from junior researchers
that can also have the effect of elevating the senior
facultys H-Index above its legitimate value (Kwok,
2008). It is also recognized that not all citations to
an authors work are laudatory. Someone who
writes a number of inflammatory papers or ones
that contain egregious errors may well have his or
her work extensively cited by others, but this does
not equate to making a positive contribution to
knowledge. However, such potential contaminants
to the purity of the H-Index would seem to exert
their malignant effect across the board, so to
speak, and not greatly influence the relative rank-
ings which are presented in Table 1, or signifi-
cantly impact our listing of the 100 most
influential contemporary social work faculty.
Lack of resources precluded the tabulation of
the several thousand faculty employed in BSW
and MSW programs that do not offer the doc-
toral degree, and to calculate their corresponding
H-Indices. It is possible that some faculty among
these nondoctoral-granting programs would have
appeared in our list of most influential scholars if
their citations had been similarly calculated.
Although this is unlikely to be the case, other
scholars may wish to undertake this type of more
in-depth analysis.
The conventional H-Index tends to favor older,
more established scholars who have been publish-
ing over a longer time frame, with this longevity
making possible a higher H-Index. One must have
high number of publications to have a high H-
Index, although quantity of papers does not ensure
the subsequent citations needed to develop a high
H-Index. A variant of the H-Index, the i10-index,
takes into account only papers that have received
10 new citations during the past 5 years. This
attenuates to some extent the role of longevity in
promoting a high H-Index. This analysis only
examined the H-Indices of faculty currently
employed within social work programs. This is
another limitation. No doubt many long (and
recently) deceased, retired, or emeritus social
workers would have appeared on our list had we
had the resources available to conduct such a com-
plicated retrieval process. Social work faculty
whose works appear in nonEnglish language jour-
nals will not have these articles retrieved by
Google Scholar, which is another limitation.
In his original paper outlining the H-Index,
Hirsch sounded a proper warning: Obviously a
single number can never give more than a rough
approximation of an individuals multifaceted
profile, and many other factors should be consid-
ered in combination in evaluating an individual
(2005, p. 16571). This caution is warranted. For
example, one may exert considerable positive dis-
ciplinary influence through nonresearch-related
activities. The legislative career of former U.S.
Senator Barbara Mikulski, the financial counsel-
ing empire of Suzie Orman, and the inspirational
talks and books of Bene Brown, social workers
all, come to mind in this regard and they deserve
honor for the roles they have played. However,
for social workers that have chosen an academic
career at a university that emphasizes research
and publications, the role of citation metrics such
as the H-Index is a useful tool to gauge ones
scholarly influence. This listing of the 100 most
influential contemporary social work faculty may
serve as a stimulus for future research into the
causes and correlates of such high achievement
(see Corcoran, Robbins, Hepler, & Magner, 1987)
References
Balaban, A. T. (1996). How should citations to articles in
high- and low-impact journals be valuated, or what is a
citation worth? Scientometrics,37, 495498.
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH 699
Barner, J. R., Holosko, M. J., Thyer, B. A., & King, S.
(2015). Research productivity in top- ranked schools in
psychology and social work: Does having a research cul-
ture matter? Journal of Social Work Education,51(1),
518. http://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2015.977123
Corcoran, K. J., Robbins, S. P., Hepler, S. E., & Magner,
G. W. (1987). Support systems and scholarly activity.
Journal of Applied Social Sciences,11, 230242.
Diamond, A. M. (1986). What is a citation worth? Journal
of Human Resources,21(2), 200215.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Park, J. Y. (2014). An incomplete
list of eminent psychologists of the modern era. Archives
of Scientific Psychology,2(1), 2032.
Farrell, A. H., Semplonius, T., Shapira, M., Zhou, X.,
Laurence, S., Willoughby, T., Evans, A. D. (2016).
Research activity in Canadian developmental sychology
programs. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne,
57(2), 7682.
Geraci, L., Balsis, S., & Busch, A. J. B. (2015). Gender and
the H-Index in psychology. Scientometrics,105,
20232034. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1757-5
Hamilton, D. P. (1990). Publishing by-and for?-the num-
bers. Science,250(4986), 13311332.
Harzing, A. W. (2007). Publish or perish. Retrieved from
http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm
Haslam, N., Stratemeyer, M., & Vargas-Saenz, A. (2016).
Scholarly productivity and citation impact of academic
psychologists in a group of eight countries. Australian
Journal of Psychology,69(3), 162166.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individuals
scientific research output. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
102(46), 1656916572. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
0507655102
Hodge, D. R., Kremer, K. P., & Vaughn, M. G. (2016).
High-impact social work scholars: A bibliographic exam-
ination of SSWR and AASWSW Fellows. Research on
Social Work Ractice,26(7), 751761.
Hodge, D. R., & Lacasse, J. R. (2011). Evaluating journal
quality: Is the H-Index a better measure than impact
factors? Research on Social Work Practice,21(2), 222230.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1049731510369141
Hodge, D. R., & Lacasse, J. R. (2011). Ranking disciplinary
journals with the Google Scholar H-Index: A new tool
for constructing cases for tenure, promotion, and other
professional decisions. Journal of Social Work Education,
47(3), 579596.
Jacobs, J. A. (2016). Journal rankings in sociology: Using
the H Index with Google Scholar. The American
Sociologist,47(2-3), 192224.
King, M. M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., &
West, J. D. (2017). Men set their own cites high: Gender
and self-citation across fields and over time. Socius,3,
122.
Kwok, L. S. (2008). The white bull effect: Abusive coauthor-
ship and publication parasitism. Journal of Medical
Ethics,31(9), 554556.
Lacasse, J. R., Hodge, D. R., & Bean, K. F. (2011).
Evaluating the productivity of social work scholars using
the H-Index. Research on Social Work Practice,21(5),
599607. http://doi.org/10.1177/1049731511405069
Marshall, I., Smith, B. D., Green, M. T., Anderson, B.,
Harry, S. V., Byrd, Y. M., Hill, S. (2016). Scholarly
productivity of social work faculty at historically Black
colleges and universities: Are H-Index scores a suitable
measure? Journal of Social Work Education,52(1),
95107. http://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1112645
Martinez, M. A., Herrera, M., Contreras, E., Ruiz, A., &
Herrera-Viedma, E. (2015). Characterizing highly cited
papers in social work through H-classics. Scientometrics,
102(2), 17131729.
Nosek, B. A., Graham, J., Lindner, N. M., Kesebir, S.,
Hawkins, C. B., Hahn, C., Tenney, E. R. (2010).
Cumulative and career-stage citation impact of social-per-
sonality psychology programs and their members.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,36(10),
12831300.
Westbrook, J. H. (1960). Identifying significant research.
Science,132(3435), 12291234.
700 T. E. SMITH ET AL.
... As social work has matured as a field, scholars have attempted to map various features of the profession's disciplinary knowledge production . Included among these are efforts to identify key contributors to social work discourse (Thyer et al., 2019). In other words, this growing body of research attempts to identify the scholars who are playing prominent roles in contributing to the profession's distinct knowledge base (Hodge et al., 2012). ...
... In social work, the h-index-calculated by harvesting citations from Google Scholar-has been widely used to identify prominent faculty and their associated characteristics (Huggins-Hoyt, 2018). More specifically, this general measure has been used to examine faculty dissemination of impactful scholarship in Australia (Tilbury et al., 2022), Canada (Holosko et al., 2018), Hong Kong (Holosko, 2022), and the United States (Thyer et al., 2019). The Google Scholar h-index has also been used to identify the top Fellows affiliated with the Society for Social Work and Research and the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare (Hodge et al., 2016). ...
... As noted above, the scholarly impact of social workers' scholarship has been examined in several studies (e.g., Holosko, 2022;Thyer et al., 2019). This research makes an important contribution to the literature, but the studies typically employ different sampling frames. ...
... As social work has matured as a field, scholars have attempted to map various features of the profession's disciplinary knowledge production . Included among these are efforts to identify key contributors to social work discourse (Thyer et al., 2019). In other words, this growing body of research attempts to identify the scholars who are playing prominent roles in contributing to the profession's distinct knowledge base (Hodge et al., 2012). ...
... In social work, the h-index-calculated by harvesting citations from Google Scholar-has been widely used to identify prominent faculty and their associated characteristics (Huggins-Hoyt, 2018). More specifically, this general measure has been used to examine faculty dissemination of impactful scholarship in Australia (Tilbury et al., 2022), Canada (Holosko et al., 2018), Hong Kong (Holosko, 2022), and the United States (Thyer et al., 2019). The Google Scholar h-index has also been used to identify the top Fellows affiliated with the Society for Social Work and Research and the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare (Hodge et al., 2016). ...
... As noted above, the scholarly impact of social workers' scholarship has been examined in several studies (e.g., Holosko, 2022;Thyer et al., 2019). This research makes an important contribution to the literature, but the studies typically employ different sampling frames. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose: This study identified the top 100 most impactful global contributors to social work journal scholarship. Methods: To conduct this descriptive study, we used a publicly available database of the world's leading scientists. After extracting all scholars in the social work category, we rank ordered them according to a composite measure of scholarly impact that controls for self-citations and author order. Results: All identified contributors to the profession's journals ranked highly relative to the larger global population of published scientists. Furthermore, 23 individuals were in the top 100,000 scientists globally. Scholars were based in seven different nations and most had solid social work credentials according to three measures: current affiliation in a social work program and Master of Social Work/doctoral degree status. Conclusions: The results reveal that social work is home to some of the world's leading scientists. Leveraging their skills and knowledge can help advance the profession's collective knowledge development and dissemination.
... These impacts are not distributed equally across race, gender, class or region (Chan & Torgler, 2020;Heffernan, 2022), with those writing in languages other than English and those from the Global South continuing to be positioned as outsiders (Roche & Flynn, 2020). This criticism could be applied to the Hodge and Turner assessment (see Thyer et al. (2019) as they exclude journals not written in English. ...
... Hodge and Turner (2023) draw on the methods of past studies assessing scholarly productivity measuring journal publications (Hodge & Lacasse, 2011;Holden et al., 2005aHolden et al., , 2005bHolosko et al., 2018;Thyer et al., 2019). Critiques of these studies include their underlying concepts, the methods chosen and the methods themselves. ...
Article
Reflecting on an article authored by Hodge and Turner (2023) that ranks the "top" 100 social work scholars, this article presents a multi-layered critique of the tradition of using bibliometrics to generate "knowledge" and competitive global rankings of individual social work faculty members, departments and universities. We raise concerns regarding the transformation of neoliberal metrics into social work research questions and projects, and then solidified into competitive, martketised knowledge about social work and its scholars. We argue that through this process, inequity and neoliberalism are normalized and legitimized, and we are further distanced from social justice, decolonization, and equity. The article provides alternative assessments grounded in community participation and social justice and aimed at expanding equity and social justice.
... Or a few exemplary and highly cited papers may be more valued than research grants addressing some relatively modest or trivial topic. We are impressed with the value of the h-index as a measure of scholarly influence, and believe that this metric, despite its flaws, will continue to assume a greater role of evaluating one's scholarship (Lacasse et al., 2011;Thyer et al., 2019). Clearly, authorship of research papers published in high quality journals is a nearly universally acknowledged benchmark of scholarship. ...
Article
KEYWORDS Social work; promotion; full professor; associate professor; criteria; standards ABSTRACT This article offers some general guidelines to social work faculty seeking to be promoted to the rank of Full Professor, guidelines that we hope will provide a beginning discussion for individual programs to develop more transparent criteria and expectations for promotion to the highest rank in the academy. Specifically, we offer guidance about the types of accomplishments in the areas of scholarship, teaching and service that can enhance one’s chances of being successfully promoted. Although this paper and its guidance are not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential achievements, the benchmarks presented represent criteria that would be likely to appear in the promotion dossier of candidates for promotion to full professor at the most rigor- ous programs in social work. While each social work program’s internal and university-wide standards may vary from those we present, our benchmarks represent an initial discussion that social work program faculty and administrators may modify and build upon.
... In any academic field, a relatively small number of individuals contribute to the discipline's knowledge base (Thyer et al., 2019). This study identifies those international scholars who have played a major role in contributing to English-language gerontological journals over the course of their careers and maps their academic affiliations. ...
Article
Full-text available
The two aims of this study were to: 1) identify the 100 most impactful contributors to English-language gerontological journals, and 2) map their respective disciplinary affiliations to help illuminate the perspectives shaping gerontological discourse. Toward that end, we conducted a secondary data analysis of a publicly available database of the world's leading scientists. After extracting all scientists in the gerontological category, we rank ordered them according to a composite measure of scholarly impact that controls for self-citations and author order while also calculating other bibliometric statistics. Disciplinary affiliations were assigned based upon the Classification of Instructional Programs codes developed by the National Center for Education Statistics at the United States Department of Education. The results reveal the mean contributor to the gerontological literature published 241.15 (SD = 203.95) papers and - after correcting for self-citations - had an h-index of 50.05 (SD = 25.00), and an hm-index 23.67 (SD = 7.50). A diverse array of professional affiliations characterized the contributors with a plurality being located in the health professions category, followed by the biological and biomedical science, and social sciences categories. The results reveal that gerontology is home to some of the world's leading scientists. Leveraging their expertise can help advance the field's collective knowledge development.
... Google Scholar is a source for h-index values (Dabós, Gantman & Fernández Rodríguez, 2019;Delgado & Repiso, 2013;García-Pérez, 2010;Mester, 2017;Thyer, Smith, Osteen & Carter, 2019). As with any data source, especially when examined from a critical perspective, the benefit is derived through an interrogation of the relative strengths, weaknesses, and accuracy of the data. ...
Article
Full-text available
Faculty performance assessments increasingly use the h-index. Designed to account for publication quantity and effect, the h-index informs organizational discussions and internal narratives. However, its use in business schools is problematic for two reasons. First, tension exists between the positivist approach of management and the reflexive approach of critical management studies. Second, the use of the h-index is hegemonic, privileging one group and construct over another. Given the power asymmetry between senior and junior faculty, discussions around one's h-index could be unavoidable. Using Google Scholar, this study compared the h-index values of those in critical management studies with those in management. Examining these data descriptively revealed that the h-index of those in critical research were greater than those in management at the assistant, associate, and full professor levels. Incorporating these findings, even if skeptical of positivism, is constructive for the advancement and continuation of critical business research.
... Será probablemente la piedra de toque del entramado metodológico en el que se apoyará la educación social en el futuro. Retomamos así ideas clave de la «investigación basada en la evidencia» y la «práctica basada en la evidencia» (Thyer, 2015;Thyer et al., 2019). Nos posicionamos de esta forma dentro de un modelo que propone la integración del conocimiento generado desde disciplinas que pueden ser muy diversas. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
En este trabajo se investiga acerca del uso que dan los adolescentes a las TIC y, más concretamente, a las redes sociales. Así mismo, nuestra atención ha estado dirigida a comprender los procesos de comunicación, interacción y relación de los adolescentes con sus iguales y la empatía o no presente en sus interacciones comunicativas. Se ha realizado la investigación en una muestra inicial perteneciente a estudiantes de ESO de centros de la Comunidad de Madrid
Article
Social work journals are essential repositories of the profession’s disciplinary knowledge, but some commentators suggest social work faculty may prioritize sending their best work to extradisciplinary journals. This mixed-methods study examined the propensity of faculty to submit their scholarship to disciplinary rather than extradisciplinary periodicals, and the factors or rationales that informed their respective decisions. To conduct this cross-sectional investigation, a national sample of tenure-track faculty (N = 270) affiliated with PhD conferring programs was employed. In addition to computing descriptive analyses, qualitative analysis was used to understand the factors that contribute to the selection of either disciplinary or extradisciplinary outlets. Among the 29% of faculty who prioritized sending their high-quality work to social work periodicals, the key themes that informed the selection process included goodness of fit with a journal’s aims and readership; a desire to support social work knowledge; and a journal’s impact factor, reputation, and overall publishing speed. For the 70% who prioritized extradisciplinary periodicals, the themes were goodness of fit with a journal’s aims and readership, impact factor, reputation, the quality of the reviews, increased rigor, and more extensive indexing. The findings raise important questions about the future of the profession’s knowledge base.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Ця стаття презентує результати аналізу академічного впливу українських науковців у галузі соціальної роботи за стандартизованими міжнародними показниками цитування та h-індексу. На основі даних з Google Академія було складено ТОП-20 найвпливовіших авторів, чий внесок в наукову сферу відзначається значними показниками цитування та високими значеннями h-індексу.Стаття обговорює необхідність збільшення міжнародної видимості та активної публікації в високорейтингових журналах, а також важливість актуалізації наукометричних профілів та якісного ведення наукових досліджень.
Article
Purpose: Bibliometric analysis has been widely adopted to measure individual productivity and discipline development. This study aims to advance the application of this method in the social work discipline. Method: Using the knowledge mapping technique in CiteSpace 5.8.R3, this study performed a co-word analysis of 1,007 first-authored articles published from 2000 to 2022 by 60 scholars who are listed among the top 2% most-cited scholars on social work and are holding doctoral degrees in the same field. Results: The cluster analysis identified seven main research hotspots and burst detection results revealed four groups of research frontiers, including spiritual and cultural needs, children's wellbeing, social work practices and development, and social work research, with bullying and peer victimization, particularly among African-American adolescents and youth in Chicago's southside, continuing to attract much research interest. Discussion: This study examines how individual works contribute to the conceptual structure and scientific evolution of social work.
Article
Full-text available
How common is self-citation in scholarly publication, and does the practice vary by gender? Using novel methods and a data set of 1.5 million research papers in the scholarly database JSTOR published between 1779 and 2011, the authors find that nearly 10 percent of references are self-citations by a paper’s authors. The findings also show that between 1779 and 2011, men cited their own papers 56 percent more than did women. In the last two decades of data, men self-cited 70 percent more than women. Women are also more than 10 percentage points more likely than men to not cite their own previous work at all. While these patterns could result from differences in the number of papers that men and women authors have published rather than gender-specific patterns of self-citation behavior, this gender gap in self-citation rates has remained stable over the last 50 years, despite increased representation of women in academia. The authors break down self-citation patterns by academic field and number of authors and comment on potential mechanisms behind these observations. These findings have important implications for scholarly visibility and cumulative advantage in academic careers.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to summarise recent research activity from 2009 to 2013 of faculty in Canadian developmental psychology programs, as there have been no previous studies on this stream in Canada. Rankings for research productivity (i.e., number of publications) and impact (e.g., citation counts) were evaluated using the Publish or Perish software. Various metrics of impact factor were calculated (e.g., h-index, hI-index, hI, annual-index, and g-index). These metrics were evaluated both with and without the most contributing faculty member to examine both the breadth and depth of each program. Overall, while some universities had relatively stable rankings across all the metrics, rankings for other universities fluctuated depending on the metric and whether or not the top contributing faculty member was included. Implications for both students and faculty members with respect to graduate studies are discussed.
Article
Full-text available
The h-index for all social work and psychology tenured or tenure-track faculty in the top 25 social work programs and psychology departments as ranked by U.S. News and World Report in 2012 and 2013, respectively, were obtained, permitting comparison of the scholarly influence between members (N = 1,939) of the two fields. This involved N = 970 social work faculty and N = 969 psychology faculty. The average h-index for social work and psychology faculty were 6.62 and 15.67, respectively. This more rigorously designed controlled-comparative study contraindicates prior research that showed social work faculty to be relatively equal to psychology, in terms of its scholarly influence. Results are discussed in terms of discipline-specific research pedagogy and practice in psychology.
Article
Full-text available
We systematically identified eminent psychologists, first using 6 sources to create an initial list of 348 eminent psychologists, and then using 3 criteria (citation metrics, textbook page coverage, and major awards) to select the most highly recognized psychologists. The rankings we produced corresponded highly with other indicators of eminence, and the top 200 are reported in the article. We also identified individuals who scored very high across all 3 indicators, as well as scientists who scored high when only 2 indicators were used. Individuals such as Daniel Kahneman and Albert Bandura ranked very high on the list of modern eminent psychologists. We found that the citation rate of the most eminent psychologists is growing at extremely high rates. A few high-prestige psychology departments heavily contributed to the doctoral education of a large number of the eminent psychologists. The most eminent researchers published an extremely large number of publications over many years; their renown rarely rested on 1 or 2 classics alone. High eminence was rarely achieved before age 50, and most of the eminent psychologists worked until late in their lives. Women are slowly gaining in eminence, but still lag substantially behind compared with their growing presence in scientific psychology. The numbers for ethnic minorities are disturbingly low and are a major concern for the field. Highly eminent psychologists come from many areas of psychology, not just from a few elite areas.
Article
Full-text available
Highly cited papers are an important reference point in a research field. H-Classics is a new identification method of highly cited papers that is based on the H-index and is sensitive to the own characteristics of any research discipline and also its evolution. Recently, Ho (Scientometrics 98(1):137–155, 2014) presented a study on highly cited papers in Social Work area using as selection criterion a citation threshold value equal to 50 citations received. In this paper, we present a new study on the highly cited papers in Social Work discipline which is developed using the concept of H-Classics. This new study provides more precise results and a different vision on Social Work area.
Article
This study sought to update norms for scholarly publication and citation impact for Australian Group of Eight (Go8) university psychology academics published by McNally (2010). Publication and citation data for 279 Go8 psychology academics were extracted using the Scopus and Google Scholar databases. Norms for career-wise publications, citations, and the h-index were developed for each academic level (from Lecturer to Professor), and eight-year publication counts for 2009–2016 were compared with the 2001–2008 figures reported by McNally. Evidence of a steep increase in scholarly productivity was found relative to McNally (2010), and new norms were generated. There was notable variation between psychology subdisciplines, with neuroscience and clinical science academics typically having higher publication and citation counts than their cognitive psychology peers. Norms for scholarly productivity and citation impact among Australian psychology academics have undergone substantial change in recent years. Caveats concerning the application of research metrics are discussed.
Article
Objective The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the bibliometric contributions of high-impact social work faculty. Methods Toward this end, we used a sample comprising fellows ( N = 143) affiliated with the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) and the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare (AASWSW). To quantify impact, we relied primarily upon the h-index (a measure of lifetime scholarly impact) and the m-index (which adjusts for career length). Results Analyses revealed the mean h-index value for SSWR fellows ( M = 26.44, SD = 14.72) was substantially lower than the mean for AASWSW fellows ( M = 32.52, SD = 15.96), but minimal differences existed in m-index values. H- and m-index values for the 40 highest impact scholars ranged, respectively, from 33 to 93 and 1.13 to 3.33. Conclusions The results indicate the social work profession includes many researchers who are making an exceptional scientific impact.
Article
Faculty scholarship at historically Black colleges and universities (HBCU) has in the past served as a blueprint for the Black masses. Even today, HBCU faculty scholarship continues to be an informative source to communicate accurate information regarding marginalized groups. This study examines h-index scores of 65 faculty members at five doctorate-granting schools of social work. The majority of calculated h-index scores were considered to be low in terms of productivity. We make the argument that these scores are not a good measure of productivity because of the problematic nature of their use to evaluate HBCU faculty. Implications for future research, practice, and teaching are presented.
Article
It has become increasingly common to rely on the h index to assess scientists’ contributions to their fields, and this is true in psychology. This metric is now used in many psychology departments and universities to make important decisions about hiring, promotions, raises, and awards. Yet, a growing body of research shows that there are gender differences in citations and h indices. We sought to draw attention to this literature, particularly in psychology. We describe the presence of a gender effect in h index in psychology and analyze why the effect is important to consider. To illustrate the importance of this effect, we translate the observed gender effect into a meaningful metric—that of salary—and show that the gender difference in h index could translate into significant financial costs for female faculty. A variety of factors are discussed that have been shown to give rise to gender differences in impact. We conclude that the h index, like many other metrics, may reflect systematic gender differences in academia, and we suggest using caution when relying on this metric to promote and reward academic psychologists.